Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />Planning and Zoning <br />July 18, 1979 <br />set some standards as a basis for a mining permit. The final plats for Carroll <br />Estates II and Swanson Estates had been signed upon receipt of money in lieu of <br />park land. <br />A letter from Patch, Erickson, Madson Inc., Architects and Planners, had been <br />received, inquiring as to the zoning situation and sewer and water availability <br />for St. Joseph's Church and another 40 acre tract just west of the detention facility <br />on County Road 53. They had been instructed by the County Commissioners to look <br />at these sites in reference to a proposed juvenile detention center for Anoka County. <br />Mr. Young, representing St. Joseph's Church, was present and explained that the <br />Church would be receptive to the offer, if it is sufficient to build a new Church; <br />however, an offer had not yet been received. They would be considering buying <br />about 9 acres, which would include St. Joseph's Church, the convent and the acreage <br />around it, but excluding the old Church and the cemetery. The Church also owns <br />40 acres right across the street, but this is not the 40 acres referred to in the <br />letter. There was some question as to exactly where the other 40 acre parcel of <br />land was located. Neither of these sites currently have sewer or water, and would <br />probably need to be rezoned. The Commission felt there were too many unanswered <br />questionson this matter to make any decisions. Mr. Heath moved to forward this <br />letter to the Council without recommendation due to inadequate information. Mr. <br />Doocy seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. <br />The next item on the agenda was a variance request for Mr. David Boyle to obtain a <br />building permit on less than 22 acres. Apparently there had already been a variance <br />granted for the parcel in question, Tract B, 1.43 acres, in June of 1972, to a Mr. <br />Floyd Miller and this should appear on the deed. Mr. Gourley moved that the Clerk <br />refund the $25 fee in that it was collected in error, and provide Mr. Doyle with a <br />copy of the June 26, 1972 minutes. Vi Schwankl seconded the motion. All were in <br />favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Boyle's representative was given a copy of <br />the June 26, 1972 minutes. <br />Next on the agenda was a variance request for Mardon homes, lots 1-46 Mardon Acres, <br />to build split entry homes, 32' x 24', less square footage than required by code. <br />There was no representative present. Mr. McLean felt that there was inadequate infor- <br />mation to consider it at this time, and also that Mr. Rehbein's project had been <br />granted as an experimental situation. Mr. Shearen moved to table this. Mr. Heath <br />seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. <br />Next for consideration was Bloom's Addition, Mr. Glenn Erickson appearing for Mr. <br />Bloom. There were letters from the planner, engineer, and the Anoka County Highway <br />Department which were read, and Mr. Erickson was provided with copies. The plat <br />will need to be redesigned with reference to the 60' right-of-way on County Road 54 <br />(instead of the 55' shown), and the policy of not platting ponds as part of the one <br />acre minimum lot size. Also, allowance for a drainage (road) easement should be <br />made between lots 3 and 4 for future extension of the cul-de-sac. This will be put <br />on the August 15 agenda. Mr. Gourley will contact Mr. Gotwald and explain further <br />what was discussed on this plat. No action was taken. <br />The next item on the agenda was the preliminary plat for East Birch Addition. The <br />planner's and engineer's letters were read. The Commission asked if there were any <br />existing buildings or houses within 100 feet of the plat, as these should be indi- <br />cated on the plan, as well as trees and natural water courses. These items had <br />not been shown on the plan. Mr. Shearen raised a question of conflict between <br />items 4 and 5 in the planner's letter; however, item 4 dealt with the Comprehensive <br />Plan outlines for that area, and item 5 dealt with the sewer interceptor and <br />